Recommendation Group 8
Recommendation Group 8
Recommendation Group 7 worked on expertise, the site selection process and compensation
Recommendation Group 7 worked on expertise, the site selection process and compensation
The purpose of COWAM2 Work Package 4 (WP4) on "e;long term governance"e; was to identify, discuss and analyse the institutional, ethical, economic and legal considerations raised by long term radioactive waste storage or disposal on the three interrelated issues of: (i) responsibility and ownership of radioactive waste over long term, (ii) continuity of local dialogue between stakeholders and monitoring of radioactive waste management facilities, and (iii) compensation and sustainable development.
This research on "e;Guidance on the selection of PTA tools for stakeholders involved in radioactive waste governance"e; was performed under the umbrella of COWAM2-'Work Package 1' (WP1). Through a dialogue on enhancing involvement at a local level, WP1 allows local stakeholders to examine the issues they face in building a democratic local governance process. WP1 also tests how Participatory Technology Assessment (PTA) methods can offer a consensual framework and a platform for deliberative co-decision among scientific and societal actors at the local level.
The purpose of COWAM2 Work Package 4 (WP4) on "e;long term governance"e; was to identify, discuss and analyse the institutional, ethical, economic and legal considerations raised by long term radioactive waste storage or disposal on the three interrelated issues of: (i) responsibility and ownership of radioactive waste over long term, (ii) continuity of local dialogue between stakeholders and monitoring of radioactive waste management facilities, and (iii) compensation and sustainable development.
The investigation consists of three parts and shall provide an input to the – empirical – PTA-2 study to be undertaken by SCK•CEN (called “lens”):<br>A. Compilation of – selected – existing PTA methods and procedures identifying requisites, practices, benefits, and challenges to answer the key questions in the context of WP1 about a PTA “toolbox”: “What can you apply, when can you apply, and what is needed to apply?” The multi-dimensional context of a possible “PTA situation” is analysed; suitable and nonsuitable methods, techniques and procedures are discussed.<br>B.
Work Package 2 (WP2) focused on the ways in which local stakeholders can influence national decision-making processes on radioactive waste management (RWM). The participants in WP2 were particularly interested in examining how local stakeholders could contribute to national debates. Their interest stemmed from the fact that participants from France, Spain and the United Kingdom — who made up the majority of the WP2 group — were engaged, as stakeholders, in the decision-making processes that were under way in each of those countries.
History shows that the search for sites for radioactive waste management facilities has been marred by conflicts and delays. Affected communities have often objected that their concerns and interests were not addressed. In response, institutions have progressively turned away from the traditional “decide, announce and defend” model, and are learning to “engage, interact and co-operate”. This shift has fostered the emergence of partnerships between the proponent of the facility and the potential host community, as shown in a recent NEA study.
REFLECTIONS ON THE INFLUENCE OF THE LOCAL ACTORS ON THE NATIONAL NUCLEAR WASTE MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK
On 8 December 1997 Belgium has signed the Joint Convention. The Belgian legislator has expressed its consent with the obligations resulting from the Convention via the Law of 2 August 2002. The ratification was obtained on 5 September 2002. The Convention became effective on 4 December 2002, or 90 days after the Ratification Act had been deposited. Belgium belongs to the group of Contracting Parties having at least one operational nuclear generating unit on their territory.
The European Atomic Energy Community (“Euratom”) is a regional organisation, as referred to in Article 39(4) of the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management. It became a party to the Convention on 2 January 2006. This report is submitted in compliance with Articles 30 and 32 of the Convention for the Second Review Meeting of the Contracting Parties, to be held in Vienna from 15 to 26 May 2006.
Kingdom of Belgium, Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management, Second Review Meeting (May 2006), Answers to the Questions of Contracting Parties on the National Report submitted by Belgium
On 8 December 1997 Belgium signed the Joint Convention. The Belgian legislator has expressed its consent with the obligations resulting from the Convention by the Law of 2 August 2002. The ratification followed on 5 September 2002. The Convention became effective on 4 December 2002, i.e. 90 days following ratification. Belgium belongs to the group of Contracting Parties having at least one operational nuclear power plant on their territory.
During the 1990s, nuclear waste programmes in nearly every concerned country met many difficulties. Nuclear waste management was seen as a technical issue, and the local communities were only involved in the last stage of the decision-making process when almost all components of the decision were already fixed. The management of high level radioactive waste is now recognised as a complex decision-making process entailing technical, ethical, social, political and economic dimensions where no solution can be reached solely on the basis of technical considerations.
This report was prepared in the context of Work Package 3 of the InSOTEC project. The overall objective of this work package (WP) is to take a closer look at arenas where socio-technical combinations on radioactive waste management (RWM) are formed. The attempt is to illustrate the interconnections between the sources of different types of information and knowledge development with the various stakeholders having access to that information.